Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WP:PW TalkArticle alertsAssessmentMembers listNew articlesNotabilityRecognized contentSanctionsSourcesStyle guideTemplatesTop priority articles
WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

Requested move for discussion[edit]

Title changes when a taped show has yet to broadcast[edit]

I've recently reverted an edit which listed a title change that hadn't yet aired. My reasoning is that if the show hasn't aired, the title change is not yet official (the promotion's website, for example, still shows the previous champion). What is this wikiproject's rule on this sort of thing? When do we alter articles to reflect the current champion, if this is technically something in the "future"? — Czello 13:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Have reliable wrestling sources covered this if so it should be covered. An example would be at Talk:Jake Hager where there was a consensus to cover his 2010 MITB contact cash in against Chris Jericho before SmackDown aired on TV.-- (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Long-standing consensus is that as long as it's reliably sourced we list title changes and edit title histories to reflect when the match actually took place, not when it aired on TV via tape delay. That's because the announcement of the winning of the title occurs for the people in attendance, who are no less valid than the people watching at home. Now, an argument could be made that since pro wrestling is not an actual sport, but a form of performing art, and it's very much made-for-tv these days that the air date is more important, but that would require a major overhaul of practice as a result of an RFC or some such. But for now, someone editing in good faith to update for events that took place as part of a TV taping, so long as it's reliably sourced, should not be reverted. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Per WP:SPOILER " the results of reality television programs, and live radio and television events broadcast on a delay in certain areas of the world such as the Eurovision Song Contest and the Olympics." As Oknazevad said, it's a consensus and there are reliable sources and the title change already happened. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm clearly in the minority here! Well, that settles that. — Czello 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:KOPW (New Japan Pro-Wrestling)#Requested move 26 December 2021[edit]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KOPW (New Japan Pro-Wrestling)#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I found this interesting.... (potential UPE)[edit]

The Wrestling Observer/F4WOnline website's Daily Update from yesterday has a job listing for a "Wikipedia guru". [1] Did Dave and Bryan already have a "Wikipedia guru"? I hope there isn't any UPE going on here. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It says: "JOB LISTING: Wikipedia guru... Do you have experience writing Wikipedia pages? Please contact..." It could be a sign of paid editing or they just want to improve WON-related content on WP. Maybe it's better to contact them and ask them clarifying their concerns. Mann Mann (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unidsputed Era[edit]

Happy New Year to everyone. With this new year 2022, I have some question that I want to ask. Feel free to give me your toughts.

First, is about the Undisputed Era article. As you known, Fish, Cole and KO joind AEW and began to work together. However, the article UE say they still active. While it's true to some point (Strong stills with WWE), it's weird to say that UE, a WWE stable, still active as a sub-group of The Elite because they're the same members. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The Undisputed Era is a WWE faction -- it shouldn't be listed as "active" because, quite simply, it's not active. There is no faction called Undisputed Era anymore. When AJ Styles and the Good Brothers were in WWE, we didn't call them Bullet Club, because they became something new. I've noticed the odd IP trying to add "Undisputed Era" to the sub-groups section of the Elite article, and I (and others) have been removing it; I'd extend this to the UE article too. — Czello 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Are Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish official members? Or are they just associates? O'Reilly brought up the past problems with Cole in which there were many in ROH and NXT. Just because O'Reilly teamed with Cole one time in AEW doesn't mean he is a member. So there needs to be some clarification. But as for the Undisputed Era specifically, I'm all for listing it as 2021 when they disbanded. Cole, O'Reilly, and Fish being official members or associates of The Elite have nothing to do with The Undisputed Era which is a WWE faction. Therefore, The Elite should not be listed in the infobox. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Evolution rename[edit]

This one, I asked McPhail. iI want to open a rename request for Evolution (AJPW). The AJPW disambiguation doesn't work, since no wrestling readers don't known the topic of the article. Also, the disambiguation doesn't explain what it is (a title, a wrestler, an event??). So, I want to change the name, but there is also Evolution (professional wrestling), which is the primary topic. So, do you have any sugestion for the Japanese article? My ideas: Evolution (AJPW stable) or (Japanese stable) or (Japanese professional wrestling stable) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Japanese professional wrestling stable) is probably the most consistent with Wikipedia guidelines -- passing editors won't know what a "stable" means in that context, so the additional descriptor is probably required (though it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). — Czello 17:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion[edit]

"Jon Hugger" to "Johnny Stamboli". McPhail (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Cagematch for titles[edit]

I know I forget something. Cagematch is one of the most used sources in the project. However, the project says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information". There is any reason why isn't reliable for title history? Match results are tied with the title history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I use Wrestling Titles. Sure you can use Cagematch, but you should always cross reference. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree that if Cagematch is deemed reliable for match results it should also be an accepted source for title histories. Though as noted having two sources is ideal. McPhail (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I've always found cagematch to be a superior source to Wrestling Titles Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Cagematch allows people to submit things. That should be taken into consideration. But, Wrestling Titles has had contributions from people as well. on the other hand can be spotty with some title histories. For example, Nikki Bella is a two time Diva's Champion, but has one reign listed. You can use But again, cross reference. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
So, there is no opposition to change the RS list and include Cagematch for matches and title history? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:PW Sources page says they do fact checking on user-submitted results (although I can't find this on the site itself). My question is who is doing this fact checking, and what makes them qualified to do so? What makes BarKing81, Franjise, RutlandInsurance, etc., experts in the subject matter? I don't see any assertion of specialized knowledge or experience in the "About Us" or "Cagematch Team" pages. Is the site listed as reliable because it meets the criteria of WP:RS or because it's convenient? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: It's like Online World of Wrestling. It's user submitted, but it's listed as unreliable unlike Cagematch which is listed under "industry specific." Even Internet Wrestling Database is listed as "limited reliability. In the note regarding Cagematch it says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database." As you mentioned, there is nothing stating their fact checking process. The about us is just the site history. I doubt there will be a site with title histories that will be 100 percent reliable or accurate. I would be all for making them limited reliability if nothing else. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks like they would fit in the "Unproven sources" category, as there doesn't seem to be any assertion or evidence of meeting WP:RS. It's true that there might not be an up-to-date site with comprehensive lineages for all titles--I don't think Solie's Title Histories, Wrestling Titles/Puroresu Dojo, or Cagematch would hold up to WP:RS scrutiny--but that would mean that we would need to gather our information from what does exist (the Duncan/Will book, match results and biographies from reliable sources, promotion websites) rather than going with the site that falls the least short of WP:RS. I would suggest that the WP:PW/RS page needs some WP:TNT and a fresh start altogether. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
There are too few WP:PW/RS, also i see nothing Cagematch has done to be considered unreliable. Its not overly used anywhere. It fits WP:reliability and WP:V guidlines. If things goes on at this rate, evrything will be considered unreliable and there will be no sourceleft to use and all wrestling articles might end up having blank pages. I don't see Cagematch causeing any big issues, it is no less teliable than Dave Meltzer's dirtsheet WON and his numerous faulty reports (like Punk coming back to WWE in 2014 which did not happen). Cagematch has never made any unproven faulty report like that. Lets just leave the articles that already uses it as a source alone and its OK if we don't use it in future but there is no need to remove any existing contents that uses it as a source, and as a matter of fact it has been used in very few places. Thats all I have to say on this matter. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Standards for reliable sources can't be lowered because of a low number of sources. They're either reliable, or they aren't. A site doesn't need to "do something" to be considered unreliable. They need to "do something" to be considered reliable (i.e. establish their qualifications and expertise in a specific field). In other words, every site would be considered unreliable unless it can be proven otherwise. There are many reliable sources, and slippery slope, "what about x?"-style arguments have no place on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Cagematch doesn't have to cause big issues to not be used. It just shouldn't be used unless it can be established that it meets WP:RS. Dave Meltzer is a recognized journalist, and a single error (or even series of errors) doesn't make a source unreliable. He is considered reliable because he has specific qualifications and expertise, which can be demonstrated in numerous ways (not the least of which are his recognition by the Cauliflower Alley Club and the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Hall of Fame, honors which I don't believe DanTalksRasslin, RKO1982, or The Sick Lebowski of Cagematch have yet attained). A source that doesn't meet WP:RS shouldn't be left in articles, even if it's only a small number of articles. The big question is that, if you claim that Cagematch meets WP:RS and WP:V, can you offer policy-based arguments to prove this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
While cagematch journalists don't have as much recognition as Dave Meltzer, that doesn't mean that tehy are not accurate and reliable. Byb this logic cbs sports, 411 mania, and all otehr accpted WP:PW/RS can be dismissed just because their writers do not have enough recognition according to WP:PW members. Anyway do whateve you want but I fail to see any reason that can cause Cagematch to be considered unreliable, they have not reported anything inaccurate and also have their own valid reputation among the wrestling world... Dilbaggg (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Just so people know what Dilbaggg deems to be a reliable source on information, have a guess what his source is for Dave Meltzer being wrong about Punk's return in 2014. When you're ready to find the answer, go here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Says ItsKesha the one who blindly edit wars articles, does not request for consennsus when making contradictory changes because he knows votes goes against his favor and have been warned by numerous users on his talk page for numerous Wikipedia policy violations but has to remove and hide them all the time. Anyway I only brought that up for his WP:NPA violation WP:Harassment attack on me, I should keep in mind that just because someoe does that to you, you dont do it to them, but I just had to mention the truth, anyway what he said has nothing to do with this discussion, I already mentioned my reasons before his off topic comment, so I leave it to whatever majority editors want, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
(1) It's not about recognition. It's about credentials. Who are they? What qualifies them to write as experts about professional wrestling? Dave Meltzer is qualified because of decades of experience, thousands of subscribers, books published by multiple established publishers, numerous connections at high levels within the business, statements made by wrestlers about his credibility or the significance of his newsletter, appearances on the critically acclaimed series Dark Side of the Ring, being quoted by other industry insiders/experts in their own books, notability to such a degree that a copy of his newsletter was featured in a WCW segment with Hulk Hogan, popularization of a match-ranking system that is well known throughout the business, 263000+ Twitter followers, holding a journalism degree and having worked as a sportswriter for newspapers, membership in a major hall of fame, and an award from an organization composed largely of industry insiders. Do you honestly want to continue to argue that he and chris35 are on the same level? This would indicate either indicates a lack of good faith or a profound misunderstanding of WP:RS. (2) The other thing you're hung up on is not being unreliable. You need to stop looking at it that way. No sources are considered reliable until it can be established that they are written by experts in the subject matter. Instead of saying "There isn't a reason they should be considered unreliable", the necessary approach is to say, "Here are the policy-based reasons that they should be considered reliable". GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are gonna talk about credentials, wrestling is not considered a notable enough sport sadly due to its scipted nature. Recognized sports journalists are found for legit games like footbal, basketnall, baseball, soccer and MMA in NFL, NBA MLB, MLS and UFC, we ca't compare wretling to that. The entire world knows its scripted, to expect wrestling authors to be graduates in sports journalism is far streatching thing, and you fail to give any reason what makes other things like 411mania reliable than cagematch, 411Mania also has very few established authors by that logic, ptretty much all WP:PW/RS then.... We look into the years of experiemnce of the authors and as long as they have 5 year plus experience at minimum in writing wrestling related contents than it should be enough, Cagematch does have some writers with decades experience and since wrestling is a scripted sports that should count enough in my opinnion. Why only target Cagematch and not all the other WP:PW/RS that have authors lacking credentials according to you then? Anyway do whatever you feel, I am finished with this discussion. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no lower standard for scripted entertainment. WP:RS is WP:RS. Your proposed criteria do not comply with WP:RS. As for 411mania, I agree that it is an unreliable source. I don't think that WP:PW/RS should have a "Limited reliability" list at all. It's not a real thing. If they don't have subject-matter experts, they shouldn't be used. In addition, the (albeit brief) discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/ indicated that they should not be used as a reliable source. As for "all the other" sites, my comments here are about Cagematch because the discussion has been about Cagematch; however, if you read through my comments in this thread, you will see that I proposed scrapping WP:PW/RS altogether and starting over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Dilbaggg, you chime in every time WP:RS is discussed but your understanding of the policy leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm not sure if WP:PW/RS needs to be completely blown up, but it should be at least partially blown up and reconstructed in the model of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Every source there has been discussed at least once. We have discussed most of the industry-specific reliable sources but many of the unreliable sources were not discussed and got placed there with a footnote that serves as proof of bad reporting. Although I don't doubt their unreliability, we should get some community consensus one way or the other.
To be fair, I do remember Cagematch being discussed previously. Unless there's something I'm missing, this conversation leaves me unconvinced that we should consider them reliable though and I'm not sure if I'd use The Internet Wrestling Database for anything either.LM2000 (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You claim Cagematch was deemed unreliable, where? And why not take the matter to WP:RSN? Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not say that. What I said was that this thread has not convinced me that they're reliable. I don't care enough to take this to WP:RSN, but I find it hard to believe that they would be swayed by the arguments presented here.LM2000 (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Well we can't just suddenly start calling a source unreliable based on the opinions of a few users. I think there needs to be a consensus and more neutral observers involved in deciding the reliability of I suggest that taking in to WP:RSN before that might help. Thearticles whih uses this a a source looks good and no one complained for a long time, now that suddenly a few members are complaining, in my opinion its best to take the matter to RSN by those who wants in to be declassified as a WP:RS. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you. If you think it should be deemed reliable, go to WP:RSN at make a case for it. If you're not going to do so, drop the issue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not the one trying to make an established WP:RS suddenly unreliable. So it is those who wants to make the change that should take it to WP:RSN and get a neutral consensus. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not an established reliable source. WP:PW/RS holds no weight. I am pointing out that it gives no assertion of reliability, and therefore it would be deemed unreliable and should probably not be used. I am not going to take this to WP:RSN. If you want to seek a consensus to use the source, the burden of proof is on you. I have nothing to gain and no interest in initiating a discussion in which you're going to badger the wider Wikipedia community about a source despite not understanding WP:RS or having an interest in gaining such an understanding. If you want to take it to WP:RSN, go for it. If not, drop the issue and stop using the source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

article for deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CM Punk Matches in AEW Muur (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong Kobayashi needs expert attention[edit]

Yet another example of someone who the real world viewed as notable decades ago, while the timing of the article's creation suggests that we view him as notable for dying. From skimming Google-accessible sources, there's conflicting birth and death dates, the latter of crucial concern as they span different years. The article text too closely parrots the handful of sources which appeared in the wake of his death. He had at least two stints as a pushed wrestler in the WWWF, which is unacknowledged. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When he died, I linked him on several articles, but there was no article at the time. Strange since, making a quick search, he won several titles and awards. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've done some work on it. I will try and flesh out the Acting career and Personal life sections. McPhail (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I included the Asia Tag Team title and the Tokyo Sports Awards. I made a quick look about PWI 500, but nothing appeared --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion[edit]